What is going to happen is that when Mickey Mouse is yet again almost due to lose copyright, Disney is going to be there to insure that copyright is once again screwed all to hell in the USA so they can retain control of the mouse. They don't give a damn that it's causing nothing but trouble. And they will pay off the government to get their way yet again. It's all about the mouse, not the good of the people.

The truly ironic thing is that if copyright were forever, Disney would not exist.

Downright evil that a company that made its pile of money milking the public domain will do whatever is necessary to avoid contributing to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrawn_aj View Post
Mind you, that doesn't mean either of them are in the clear over this. They are ethically bound to filter out stuff like this before allowing someone to self-publish.

I'm not sure why they should be held responsible for doing that. What criteria should they use to decide "this one gets through, this one doesn't"...?

In general, it seems to me they try to remain neutral regarding what does and does not get into their online store, and that feels right. I don't demonise Amazon the way some here do, but nor do I want them to become some sort of gatekeeper, except in terms of what is or is not legal to sell. They're already limiting the publication via their DTP interface of further versions of PD titles where there are already many other versions available. It's already reaching a point where even those who have spent time and effort translating PD works from English into other languages are having difficulty publishing the translated version via DTP because of Amazon's growing reluctance to accept further PD titles.

- Donna

I explained why it's a disservice to B&N customers that such titles are cluttering up the search results. The same thing applies to Amazon. Since Amazon is a business, I would imagine it feels some responsibility towards its customers to keep the store as easily browseable as possible (not to mention a vested interest in doing so). A minimal level of quality control does not equate to censorship or gate-keeping.

Of course, a minimally knowledgeable customer would never shop one of these stores for a classic because he/she would know that a PG version is likely available for free. So, really, I have no personal stake in this.

You yourself mention above that they are already limiting further PD works from inclusion. That works for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by queentess

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrawn_aj View Post
Mind you, that doesn't mean either of them are in the clear over this. They are ethically bound to filter out stuff like this before allowing someone to self-publish.

Ethically bound to prevent something that is completely legal? Books in the public domain are exactly that: public.

That's why I said "ethically" instead of "legally" . It's more of a disservice to the customer than anything else (I explained that for B&N - same argument for Amazon).